My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE
- Thread starter ENGLISH!
- Start date
- Status
Because people are all wired differently. A robot might "get" CTE immediately since it would have no built in bias to overcome.
That's all beside the point of this thread. All a robot has to do to answer the question of this thread is get to the no-spin, no-throw shot line following "robotic" instructions - no execution needed.
pj
chgo
What the hell is wrong with you? Nobody answers questions on a forum and you're one of them. The objective is to obfuscate and prolong the torture for all involved.
Yes that's exactly what I mean. A person IS subjective in how he approaches situations. People have bias built in from their own life experiences, what they have been taught, their habits, their feelings can cloud their judgement.
Of course a robot can practice until he gets it....that's exactly what Watson did to prepare for playing Jeopardy. But a robot that used the same visual system that a human does for it's input could PROBABLY be programmed to use CTE as an aiming method.
Because CTE works. So if a human can do it then a robot can as well.
Explain to me how you can take a player and give him a shot and he flails at it missing by diamonds with wildly inconsistent results with feel-trial/error but you can have one CTE user tell another one the visual (key) for any given shot and that second CTE user can walk up to a table cold and make the shot he has never practiced before and do it consistently? Doesn't that mean that CTE is less subjective than you imply?
I mean I could place some balls on the table and tell Bob Nunley, or Cookie, or Dave or Gerry Williams or Duke Laha the alignment visual and they would line up and make the shot without the slightest hesitation. How is that possible?
Do we have a shared subconscious that guesses right on every shot presented to us?
Another non sequitur showing we're not really talking to each other.
I'm glad CTE works for you guys (really). Wish it was possible to have an intelligent, non-defensive conversation about it.
pj
chgo
That's possible as long as the robot uses the same type of visual alignment that a human does. CTE works using the perception that humans have so I guess that the robot would need the same perception input to properly execute the instructions.
Not being defensive. You thinking no one else is intelligent enough to converse with you is probably part of the problem.
Robots use all sorts of sensors to figure where they are in the world and how they relate to other objects. They don't perceive things the way a human does.
So you're taking a system, in this case CTE, and trying to fit it to a robot's perception.
Ghost ball can and has been programmed for robots because the robot doesn't have to perceive anything to use it. The robot has an exact measurement of everything on the pool table so it can accurately place a "ghost ball" and shoot into it even though a ghost ball is not needed because a robot can also plot trajectories and contact point offsets for the cueball with 100% accuracy using inputs that a human does not.
So in that sense ghost ball aiming for a robot is 100% objective since it can perform the task with 100% accuracy using an array of sensors. However if you had a robot that could only use the same inputs that a human can then I predict that it would not be as successful with ghost ball aiming if that could even be programmed.
For example a robot could have a way to measure distance from the cueball to the object ball and thus aim for a spot 1.125" away from the ball. A human has no way to do that other than estimation. Estimation that can be honed of course but estimation nonetheless.
Thus for me a robot would have much more success with the CTE instructions as it could accurately divide a ball into portions and accurately project lines covering cue ball center and object ball portions and the edges from a given perspective. That's my opinion anyway.
That's been you for 20 years now, same old same old wrong info.
You're right, and I apologize for that tone - to you, cookie man and Spidey. I don't think you understand me, but I don't need to be a dick about it - I let my frustration get the best of me.
My opinion is that a robot couldn't use CTE at all because the instructions that are clear enough to follow robotically end well before the aiming solution is found - right about where undefined (there's that word again) things like "the visual" and "the perception" enter the picture.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
And then he goes, "Hey, you speak-a my language?"
So you go, "Eat this. It's a Vegemite sandwich. 8 ball, corner pocket."
Well...
It took less than 7 hours overnight & on the 10th post for THIS thread to start down the death spiral into the hell hole of anything associated with anything to do with the claim of an 'objective aiming system' more commonly known as CTE.
It seems that what the proponents, advocates, & defenders beyond rational logical reason of such, want for their threads is NOT allowed, by them, for those on the other side of the coin.
So... I think that type of hypocrisy should result in ANY requests or 'demands' for keeping 'negativity' out of 'their' threads as null & void or not even worthy of consideration. I've actually seen very few that have asked any questions regarding help in learning how to use or better use CTE & the few that I have seen have been rather rudely & with no civility been rebuffed & called 'haters' for trying the learn the method that some say must be learned before any substantive questions can even be asked. How illogical & nonsensical & disingenuous it that?
If everyone was more like morht/Monty, perhaps the CTE 'war' could be pulled back into a civilized summit meeting where matters might be discussed in a civil & somewhat polite manner.
But...
Tit for Tat, pot calling kettle black, hypocrisy, or whatever, shows how disingenuous & bias those 'no negativity' requests on their part were & are. There can be no question or doubt regarding what CTE is. It must be taken 100% as it is 'presented' & described or... you're a 'hater' & 'liar' or worse.
There were rules of war back in the day & when one side violated them the other side could call foul, but when that side also violated the same rule of war, they lost ALL credibility when they again called foul.
I think that most of the general membership & visitors that only read here at AZB can see the reality of matters & realize in what camp the true logic & objective determinations actually live in regards to the 'questions' about any supposed 'objective aiming system'.
Logic & science on one side...
& fanciful, speculative, whimsical, & a seemingly endless fallacy filled 'analogies' that are not even really relative to the issue constantly being put forth by the other side with no real answers to the legitimate questions regarding such a grandiose, intriguing, & solitary claim.
A CTE proponent sort of describe CTE to me in PM as the required perceptions not really being objective but that it is a systematic approach that results in a lot less guessing for him vs the ghost ball method from which he immediately came.
I think I, & even PJ could agree with that as long as the adjective of 'objective' is not applied to it & left out of any description.
I think many, if not most all of us, were filled with enthusiasm when we evolved from the ghost ball concept to what ever more visually solid approach or method to which we went. Perhaps that is partly why some so vehemently defend 'their' method or 'system' even though it is not WHAT they think or believe that it is.
Perhaps 2 or 3 member debate teams shoud be established & ALL others be kept out of a thread for the purpose of debating whether or not CTE is truly an 'objective aiming system'.
But it would need a moderator to call foul for any disallowed illogical arguments.
Perhaps then the truth would become blatantly apparent & the 'war' could be put to end with an appropriate conclusion & a Truce.
Perhaps then a cooperative effort could be had to try to determine the true value.
Best Wishes to ALL.
It took less than 7 hours overnight & on the 10th post for THIS thread to start down the death spiral into the hell hole of anything associated with anything to do with the claim of an 'objective aiming system' more commonly known as CTE.
It seems that what the proponents, advocates, & defenders beyond rational logical reason of such, want for their threads is NOT allowed, by them, for those on the other side of the coin.
So... I think that type of hypocrisy should result in ANY requests or 'demands' for keeping 'negativity' out of 'their' threads as null & void or not even worthy of consideration. I've actually seen very few that have asked any questions regarding help in learning how to use or better use CTE & the few that I have seen have been rather rudely & with no civility been rebuffed & called 'haters' for trying the learn the method that some say must be learned before any substantive questions can even be asked. How illogical & nonsensical & disingenuous it that?
If everyone was more like morht/Monty, perhaps the CTE 'war' could be pulled back into a civilized summit meeting where matters might be discussed in a civil & somewhat polite manner.
But...
Tit for Tat, pot calling kettle black, hypocrisy, or whatever, shows how disingenuous & bias those 'no negativity' requests on their part were & are. There can be no question or doubt regarding what CTE is. It must be taken 100% as it is 'presented' & described or... you're a 'hater' & 'liar' or worse.
There were rules of war back in the day & when one side violated them the other side could call foul, but when that side also violated the same rule of war, they lost ALL credibility when they again called foul.
I think that most of the general membership & visitors that only read here at AZB can see the reality of matters & realize in what camp the true logic & objective determinations actually live in regards to the 'questions' about any supposed 'objective aiming system'.
Logic & science on one side...
& fanciful, speculative, whimsical, & a seemingly endless fallacy filled 'analogies' that are not even really relative to the issue constantly being put forth by the other side with no real answers to the legitimate questions regarding such a grandiose, intriguing, & solitary claim.
A CTE proponent sort of describe CTE to me in PM as the required perceptions not really being objective but that it is a systematic approach that results in a lot less guessing for him vs the ghost ball method from which he immediately came.
I think I, & even PJ could agree with that as long as the adjective of 'objective' is not applied to it & left out of any description.
I think many, if not most all of us, were filled with enthusiasm when we evolved from the ghost ball concept to what ever more visually solid approach or method to which we went. Perhaps that is partly why some so vehemently defend 'their' method or 'system' even though it is not WHAT they think or believe that it is.
Perhaps 2 or 3 member debate teams shoud be established & ALL others be kept out of a thread for the purpose of debating whether or not CTE is truly an 'objective aiming system'.
But it would need a moderator to call foul for any disallowed illogical arguments.
Perhaps then the truth would become blatantly apparent & the 'war' could be put to end with an appropriate conclusion & a Truce.
Perhaps then a cooperative effort could be had to try to determine the true value.
Best Wishes to ALL.
Subjectivity is Obvious....Its the Claims!
I think its the claims of such that set off the disagreement.
On one hand you have great feel players that cant tell people how they do what they do and they generally don't agree on anything because everyones version of feel is a little different, and the only idea that seems common ground is that feel rules and then you have the claims about CTE.
Lets see just what I can remember....What are the main claims that the proponent's have made and what would have been better said?.....other than things that resounded like CTE is going to take over the world! lol...Such a war! Yet feel players outnumber systemology of any kind and that will always be because people want to see what they can do by themselves first and foremost. They always will.
Objectivity or not it comes down to the subjectivity of the person learning to play.
I think its the claims of such that set off the disagreement.
On one hand you have great feel players that cant tell people how they do what they do and they generally don't agree on anything because everyones version of feel is a little different, and the only idea that seems common ground is that feel rules and then you have the claims about CTE.
Lets see just what I can remember....What are the main claims that the proponent's have made and what would have been better said?.....other than things that resounded like CTE is going to take over the world! lol...Such a war! Yet feel players outnumber systemology of any kind and that will always be because people want to see what they can do by themselves first and foremost. They always will.
Objectivity or not it comes down to the subjectivity of the person learning to play.
LIE, flat out lie!.........misrepresentation of what I said.
I did not say CTE would take over the world! I said it will spread around the world and that is already occurring quite well....
Stan Shuffett
Thanks. Since we both know that no one is going to undertake this experiment to see what can be done robotically it's really not a point of discussion that is practically applicable to the conversation.
That said I do think terms like "the visual" and "the perception" have meaning.
If I say to another CTE user the following,
31 23 L C 3 L
Then he will know exactly where to place the ball, what the target pocket is, what visual perception to use and which direction to pivot from.
I don't know how it gets any more explicit than that for instructions.
This can be a shot that the second user has never before in his life shot. He will step up to it and fire it in most likely.
OR
It can be a shot he has never before in his life shot and I can ask him what the parameters are for it and without shooting it he will write down something equal to this.
31 23 L C 3 L
What part of this is feel?
Hi Robin,
I do not totally agree with all that you say here or perhaps it's how said.
Feel players still use methods, 'aiming' methods, but we know that those methods have holes that must be filled in by 'feel' or a subjective interpretation or a conscious or subconscious adjustment, etc.
Objectivity does NOT come down to the subjectivity or a person.
Objectivity is what it is. It is the objective truth & NOT a subjective perception.
I hope you can see the differentiation as this is the second time in this thread that it seem you do not have a good handle on what objectivity is.
No offense intended. Perhaps it is I that am misunderstanding what it is you are saying.
Best 2 Ya.
Sir, with all due respect, PLEASE do not come into my thread & call anyone a LIAR or infer that they are such by saying what they said is a "LIE, flat out lie!"?
For one thing YOU were not quoted as saying anything. Perhaps it was something that John Barton said.
Robin may have made a mistake but there is no need nor justification to infer that anyone is lying.
Mike Howerton has asked (demanded) for politeness in my thread & I hereby do the same.
Please apologize & restate your objection.
Best Wishes to You & ALL.
You must be kidding! I will defend myself against lies and doubly so when they are accompanied with "lol".....
Furthermore, your entire thread and mission is to discredit my work. I will enter into this thread as I choose to so as to defend my work. You have been trying your best to tear down my work for years.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
It's really telling on your agenda on how you continually refuse to accept the given definitions of objective, and use only your opinion on what the word means.
- Status